1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 523 of 2016
 Smt. Santosh Devi Agrawal W/o Shri Vimal Agrawal, Aged About 60 Years
R/o Village Urla, Abhanpur, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
--- Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary Of Ministry Of Road, Transport &
Highways Government Of India, New Delhi
2. National Highway Authority Of India, Through Its Project Director, National
Highway No. 43 ( N.R.R- 30), Raipur Dhamtari Section ( By- Pass), District
Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
3. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
4. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
5. Competent Authority-Cum- Sub Divisional Officer, ( Revenue And Land
Acquisition Officer), Arang/ Abhanpur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondents
And
WPC No. 570 Of 2016
1. Neeraj Agrawal S/o Shri Vimal Agrawal, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village
Urla, Abhanpur, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
2. Nitin Agrawal, S/o Shri Vimal Agrawal, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village
Urla, Abhanpur, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)- Petitioners
Vs
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary Of Ministry Of Road, Transport &
Highways Government Of India, New Delhi
2. National Highway Authority Of India, Through Its Project Director, National
Highway No. 43 ( N.R.R.- 30), Raipur- Dhamtari Section ( By Pass), District
Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
3. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
4. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
5. Competent Authority-Cum- Sub Divisional Officer, ( Revenue And Land
2
Acquisition Officer), Arang/ Abhanpur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondents
And
WPC No. 569 Of 2016
1. Neeraj Agrawal S/o Shri Vimal Agrawal, Aged About 39 Years R/o Village
Urla, Abhanpur, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
2. Nitin Agrawal, S/o Shri Vimal Agrawal, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village
Urla, Abhanpur, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) - Petitioners
Vs
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary Of Ministry Of Road, Transport &
Highways Government Of India, New Delhi
2. National Highway Authority Of India, Through Its Project Director, National
Highway No. 43 ( N.R.R- 30), Raipur Dhamtari Section ( By- Pass), District
Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
3. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
4. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
5. Competent Authority-Cum- Sub Divisional Officer, ( Revenue And Land
Acquisition Officer), Arang/ Abhanpur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondents
And
WPC No. 565 Of 2016
 Vimal Agrawal S/o Late Manga Ram Agrawal, Aged About 65 Years R/o
Village Urla, Abhanpur, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
---- Petitioner
Vs
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary Of Ministry Of Road, Transport &
Highways Government Of India, New Delhi
2. National Highway Authority Of India, Through Its Project Director, National
Highway No. 43 ( N.R.R.- 30), Raipur- Dhamtari Section ( By Pass), District
Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
3. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
4. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
5. Competent Authority-Cum- Sub Divisional Officer, ( Revenue And Land
3
Acquisition Officer), Arang/ Abhanpur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondents
And
WPC No. 567 Of 2016
 Nagendra Kumar Sinha S/o Shri Nirmal Kumar Sinha, Aged About 34 Years
R/o Ahanpur Basti, Abhanpur, Basti, Abhanpur, Tehsil Abhanpur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Vs
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary Of Ministry Of Road, Transport &
Highways Government Of India, New Delhi,
2. National Highway Authority Of India, Through Its Project Director, National
Highway No. 43 ( N.R.R.30), Raipur Dhamtari Section By Pass District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
5. Competent Authority Cum Sub Divisional Officer, ( Revenue And Land
Acquisition Officer, Arang / Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
And
WPC No. 578 Of 2016
1. Smt. Nidhi Agrawal W/o Shri Neeraj Agrawal, Aged About 36 Years R/o
Village Urla, Abhanpur, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
2. Smt. Mansi Agrawal, W/o Shri Nitin Agrawal, Aged About 34 Years R/o
Village Urla, Abhanpur, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
---- Petitioners
Vs
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary Of Ministry Of Road, Transport &
Highways, Government Of India, New Delhi
2. National Highway Authority Of India, Through Its Project Director, National
Highway No. 43 (N. R. R.- 30), Raipur Dhamtari Section ( By Pass), District
Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
3. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
4. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
4
5. Competent Authority Cum Sub Divisional Officer, ( Revenue And Land
Acquisition Officer), Arang/ Abhanpur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondents
And
WPC No. 577 Of 2016
 Lekhan Sahu S/o Late Fulji Lal Sahu, Aged About 42 Years R/o Abanpur
Basti, Abhanpur, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh - Petitioner
Vs
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary Of Ministry Of Road, Transport &
Highways Government Of India, New Delhi,
2. National Highway Authority Of India, Through Its Project Director, National
Highway No. 43 ( N.R.R.30), Raipur Dhamtari Section By Pass District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
5. Competent Authority Cum Sub Divisional Officer, ( Revenue And Land
Acquisition Officer, Arang / Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
And
WPC No. 558 Of 2016
1. Vimal Agrawal (H.U.F.) S/o Late Mange Ram Agrawal, Aged About 65 Years
R/o Village Urla, Abhanpur, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Vs
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary Of Ministry Of Road, Transport &
Highways Government Of India, New Delhi,
2. National Highway Authority Of India, Through Its Project Director, National
Highway No. 43 ( N.R.R.30), Raipur Dhamtari Section By Pass District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. The Collector, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
5. Competent Authority Cum Sub Divisional Officer, ( Revenue And Land
Acquisition Officer, Arang / Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
5
---- Respondents
And
WPC No. 568 Of 2016
1. Smt. Nidhi Agrawal W/o Shri Neeraj Agrawal, Aged About 36 Years R/o
Village Urla, Abhanpur, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Smt. Mansi Agrawal, W/o Shri Nitin Agrawal, Aged About 34 Years R/o
Village Urla, Abhanpur, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Vs
1. Union Of India Through Secretary Of Ministry Of Road, Transport &
Highways Government Of India, New Delhi,
2. National Highway Authority Of India, Through Its Project Director, National
Highway No. 43 ( N.R.R.30), Raipur Dhamtari Section By Pass District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
5. Competent Authority Cum Sub Divisional Officer, ( Revenue And Land
Acquisition Officer, Arang / Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioners
For Respondent No.1
:
:
Shri Ankur Agrawal and Shri Raza Ali, Advocates
Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Shri Bhupendra Singh,
Shri Ramakant Pandey and Shri R.K.Kesharwani,
Advocates
For Respondent No.2
:
Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 to 5/State :Shri Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Advocate
General
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Order On Board
26/07/2016
Since all the petitions involve common question of law and common facts,
they are being disposed of by this common order.
6
2.
Petitioners are land holders whose lands have been notified for acquisition
under Section 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred
to as the Highways Act) for widening and construction of by-pass including four
laning of National Highway No.43 (new N.H.No.30) Raipur – Dhamtari section.
3.
Assailing the notifications (Annexure P/5 and P/10), it is argued by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the said notification is not in conformity with
the provisions contained in Section 3A of the Highways Act, therefore, it deserves
to be quashed. It is vehemently urged that in the absence of details of part of the
land belonging to the petitioners, which is sought to be acquired, they have been
denied opportunity to raise objection, as provided under Section 3C of the Act and
thus there has been violation of principles of natural justice, which has rendered
the entire exercise illegal and arbitrary.
Reliance is placed in the matter of
Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute Factory and others, (2005) 13 SCC
477.
4.
Learned counsel appearing for the National Highways Authority as well as
learned counsel for Union of India and the State Government would argue that the
notification itself mentions that the plan of the boundaries and the other details of
the land covered under the notification is available in the Office of Competent
Authority and the party interested can inspect the plan. It is also submitted that the
petitioners have not raised any objection to the effect that the acquisition is not for
any public purpose, therefore, the petitions must fail. Referring to the law laid down
by the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. Dr. Kushala Shetty &
Ors., AIR 2011 SC 3210, it is put forth that when the plan is made part of the
notification by making a reference of the same and allowing inspection by the
interested parties, the notification is in conformity with the provisions contained
under Section 3A of the Act, therefore, no interference is called for.
7
5.
Sections 3A and 3D of the Highways Act need reference which are
reproduced hereunder:
“3A. Power to acquire land, etc.--- (1) Where the Central
Government is satisfied that for a public purpose any land is required
for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a national
highway or part thereof, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
declare its intention to acquire such land.
(2) Every notification under sub-section (1) shall give a brief
description of the land.
(3) The competent authority shall cause the substance of the
notification to be published in two local newspapers, one of which will
be in a vernacular language.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
3D. Declaration of acquisition.--- (1) Where no objection under
sub-section (1) of section 3C has been made to the competent authority
within the period under sub-section (2) of that section, the competent
authority shall, as soon as may be, submit a report accordingly to the
Central Government and on receipt of such report, the Central
Government shall declare, by notification in the Official Gazette, that the
land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of section 3A.
(2) On the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the
land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all
encumbrances.
(3) Where in respect of any land, a notification has been published
under sub-section (1) of section 3A for its acquisition but no declaration
under sub-section (1) has been published within a period of one year
from the date of publication of that notification, the said notification shall
cease to have any effect:
Provided that in computing the said period of one year, the
period or periods during which any action or proceedings to be taken in
pursuance of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 3A
8
is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded.
(4) A declaration made by the Central Government under subsection (1) shall not be called in question in any court or by any other
authority.”
6.
Section 3A(2) of the Highways Act provides that every notification under
sub-section (1) shall give a brief description of the land. The expression “brief
description” has not been defined in the Highways Act.
Therefore, it is to be
understood as per its ordinary meaning with reference to the Village, Taluq and the
Khasra number or plot number and whether the land is agriculture or nonagriculture. Brief description of the land would not mean as to which part of the
Khasra number is sought to be acquired. In a given case, if the plan is not made
available for inspection, it may be argued that reference to that very part of the
land, which is sought to be acquired, would be necessary, however, when the plan
is made part of the notification and the affected persons have been allowed
inspection, it is not permissible to argue that the notification lacks material
particulars in terms of Section 3A (2) of the Highways Act.
In the matter of
Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory and others (supra) relied upon
by the petitioners, observations have been made about the non-mentioning of the
particular area of the bigger chunk of the land which is sought to be acquired
because in the said case no plan was available nor it was referred in the
notification. To appreciate the fact and context of that case, reproduction of para 7
is necessary, which is as follows:
“7. The availability of a plan would have made all the difference. If
there is a plan, the area under acquisition becomes identifiable
immediately. The question whether the impugned notification meets the
requirement of brief description of land under Section 3-A(2) goes to the
root of the matter. The High Court rightly observed: “... It is just not
possible to proceed to determine the necessity of acquisition of a
particular plot of land without preparation of a proper plan.” The appendix
to the impugned notification shows that in many cases small parts of
larger chunks of land have been notification shows that in many cases
small parts of larger chunks of land have been notified for acquisition.
This is not possible without preparing a plan. But where is the plan? The
notification in question makes no reference to any plan. Our attention
9
was drawn to averments in pleadings by the writ petitioners and replies
thereto of the acquiring authority. The writ petitioners have pleaded that
there was no plan. Replies are vague and by way of rolled-up answers.
There is no specific reply. It is obvious that there was no plan and,
therefore, none was referred to in the pleadings nor anything was
produced before the Court at the hearing. Learned counsel for the
competent authority tried to submit before us that there was a plan at the
time of issue of the notification and the writ petitioners ought to have
inspected it, if they so desired. He further submitted that the plan was
produced before the High Court. We find that both these submissions
are not sustainable as they are not correct. A reference to the impugned
notification shows that there is no mention of any plan. Without this how
can anybody know that there was a plan which could be inspected and
inspected where? We are inclined to accept that there was no plan
accompanying the impugned notification. During the course of hearing
we were shown a plan which we are unable to link with the impugned
notification. This was a 1996 PWD plan. PWD is a department of the
State Government.
The impugned notification is by the Central
Government. NHAI is established under a Central Act. The competent
authority under Section 3 of the Act is appointed by the Central
Government. Therefore, this State Government plan of 1996 (the
impugned notification is of 1998) is of no assistance. The impugned
judgment of the High Court emphasises the need for a plan. It is clear
from the judgment of the High Court that no plan was produced before it.
The absence of any reference to a plan in the impugned notification and
in fact non-availability of any plan linked to the notification, fortifies the
argument that the description of the land under acquisition in the
impugned notification fails to meet the legal requirement of a brief
description of the land which renders the notification invalid.”
Thus, it is manifest that in the matter before the Supreme Court, the
notification under Section 3A of the Highways Act was interfered because the plan
was not made part of the notification, whereas in the instant case the plan has
been made part of the notification, therefore, the facts are entirely different and the
judgment relied upon by the petitioners is of no assistance to them.
7.
In the matter of New Tea Company Ltd. & Anr. v. National Highways
Authority of India & Ors., AIR 2007 Calcutta 60, the Division Bench of Calcutta
High Court has taken similar view to hold that if the plan is made part of the
notification, it satisfies prerequisites of a valid notification under Section 3-A even if
the exact location of the land proposes to be acquired is not mentioned in the
notification. The following has been held in para – 15 of the judgment.
“15.
After going through the said notification, we find that the plot
10
numbers of the land sought to be acquired have been mentioned therein
but the exact location of the land has not been indicated. In our view, Mr.
Bhattacharya was quite justified in contending that the notice having further
disclosed that the exact location of the land proposed to be acquired would
be available from the office of the respondent and that it was open for the
inspection by all the interested persons, there was no just ground for
branding the notification as invalid for want of sufficient description. It
appears that in the section itself, all that has been mentioned is that there
must be a “brief description” of the land and not the detailed description.
The notification having described the plot numbers of the land and having
invited the interested persons to visit the office for inspection of the map,
we are of the view that there was sufficient compliance of the formalities
mentioned in the said section. In the case of Competent Authority v.
Barangore Jute Factory (supra), relied upon by Mr. Mitra, there was even
no reference of any map for inspection by the interested persons for the
purpose of locating the land acquired and for the above reason, the
Supreme Court declared that the notification was bad for its vagueness. In
paragraph 7 of the judgment, the Supreme Court however, made the
following observations :
The availability of a plan would have made all the differences. If there is
a plan, the area under acquisition becomes identifiable immediately.”
8.
In the matter of V. Nandkumar, V. Raji and V. Vinayagam vs. Union of
India (UOI) & ors., reported in (2010) 1 MLJ 901, it is held that once after
issuance of notification under Section 3A of the Act, the objections have been dealt
with and disallowed and the final notification under Section 3D is published, the
lands vest with the Central Government and once that happens, the petitioners will
be entitled for only compensation.
9.
In the matter of Dr. V.S. Shukla & Ors. v. National Highways Authority of
India (Ministry of Road Transport & Highways) & Ors., AIR 2013 Karnataka 65,
challenge to the acquisition notification under Section 3A of the National Highways
Act has been rejected on the ground that when plan of the area under acquisition
was already made part of notification, not giving all particulars of land proposed to
be acquired would not vitiate the acquisition proceedings.
10.
Yet again, the Madras High Court in the matter of The Clasic Farms
(Chennai) Ltd. vs. The Union of India and ors., reported in (2014) 2 MLJ 336,
held that when Section 3A of the Act notification clearly indicated that Authorities
11
had made cite plans and other details of the land covered under the notification
which is available in the Office for inspection by the interested persons and the
notification contained brief description of the land, the notification fulfills the
requirement of Section 3A of the Act and it does not suffer from any legal defect.
11.
The petitioners have already moved their objection which has been decided
by the competent authority and thereafter notification under Section 3D of the
Highways Act has been issued. Section 3D (2) provides that on the publication of
the declaration under sub-section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central
Government free from all encumbrances.
Thus, from the date of issuance of
notification under Section 3D of the Highways Act, the land has already vested in
the Central Government.
12.
It is also argued that the order rejecting the petitioners' objection is not a
speaking order nor the objection can be said to have been rejected by the said
order, therefore, there is violation of the provisions contained in Section 3C read
with Section 3D of the Highways Act.
13.
Annexure P/9 in WPC No.523 of 2016 is the document whereby the
objection has been dealt with. True it is that the order or the decision on the
objection is not properly crafted like an order by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority,
however, there appears application of mind while dealing with the objection.
Column 4 of the order deals with the nature of the objection while column 5 would
consider the report submitted by the Project Director and thereafter the nature of
disposal of the objection has been mentioned in column 6. It is clearly mentioned
in column 6 that the partition of Khasra numbers which are affected by the subject
notification would be mentioned in the notification under Section 3D of the
Highways Act, meaning thereby that as per the plan available in the Office, the
appropriate partition or division of Khasra numbers would be mentioned in the
notification under Section 3D of the Highways Act.
12
14.
The law with regard to the requirement of notification under Section 3A(1) of
the Highways Act has been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of
India v. Dr. Kushala Shetty (supra), holding that such an objection is not
sustainable when the plan is made part of the initial notification. Paras – 19 and 20
of the judgment can be profitably referred, which are as follows:
“19. In this case, notification dated 10.8.2005, which was published in
the official Gazette of the same date and of which substance was
published in two local newspapers, contained full description of the land
proposed to be acquired for widening three National Highways. The
names of the villages in which the land proposed to be acquired was
situated, the survey numbers including sub-survey numbers, the nature,
type and area of the land were also given in the schedule appended to the
notification. Not only this, it was clearly mentioned that land plans and
other details of the land are available in the office of the Competent
Authority. This is the reason why none of the land owners (including the
respondents) made any grievance that the notification issued under
Section 3A(1) of the 1956 Act was vague or that due to lack of
particulars/details, they were prevented from effectively exercising their
right to file objections in terms of Section 3C(1). Of course, a grievance of
this score was made in the objections dated 16.10.2006 filed by some of
the land owners of Padavu Village, but that was clearly an afterthought
and, in any case, the same did not require consideration because of nonadherence to the time schedule specified in Section 3C(1) of the 1956 Act.
20. The only reason assigned by the Division Bench of the High Court
for upsetting the well considered order passed by the learned single Judge
negating the respondents' challenge to the acquisition was that declaration
under Section 3D(1) was published even before communication of the
decision taken by the Competent Authority in terms of Section 3C(2). The
process of reasoning adopted by the Division Bench for recording its
conclusion appears to have been influenced by an assumption that the
objections filed by the land owners had not been decided till the issue of
declaration under Section 3D(1). However, the fact of the matter is that
the Competent Auithority had, after giving opportunity of personal hearing
to the objectors, passed order dated 11.10.2005 and rejected the
objections. Though, that order was not crafted like a judicial order which is
passed by a legally trained mind, the rejection of the representations made
by the respondents cannot be faulted only on that ground. The Competent
Authority did advert to the substance of objections, the details of which
have been incorporated in Annexure P-3 filed before this Court. The
concerned officer rejected the same by observing that the land proposed
for acquisition is necessary for widening the existing National Highways
into four lanes. If the consideration made by the Competent Authority is
judged in the backdrop of the fact that a Special Purpose Vehicle was
incorporated with the name New Mangalore Port Road Company Limited
for implementation of the project known as New Mangalore Port Road
Connectivity Project from Surathkal to Nantoor and B.C. Road to Padil
along with bypass from Nantoor to Padil, it is not possible to castigate the
proved reasons recorded by the Competent Authority for rejecting the
objections.”
13
15.
For the foregoing, this Court is of the opinion that the notification under
Section 3A or Section 3D does not suffer from any infirmity.
16.
The acquisition being for a public purpose for widening of the road and the
said declaration or decision in the notification having not been assailed, there is no
substance in the writ petitions. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/Judge
(Prashant Kumar Mishra)
Anjani
14
HEAD NOTE
Brief description of land mentioned and plan was made part of notification
making it available for inspection; notification u/S 3A of NH Auth. Act fulfills
requirement of law.